Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of [#permalink]
12 Aug 2009, 02:01
0% (00:00) correct
100% (01:07) wrong based on 2 sessions
Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of our X-387 jets as dangerous. No X-387 in commercial use has ever crashed or even had a serious malfunction. Airline regulator: The problem with the X-387 is not that it, itself, malfunctions, but that it creates a turbulence in its wake that can create hazardous conditions for aircraft in its vicinity. The airline regulator responds to the manufacturer by doing which of the following? (A) Characterizing the manufacturer’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts (B) Drawing attention to the fact that the manufacturer’s interpretation of the word “dangerous” is too narrow (C) Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue (D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim (E) Casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer’s knowledge of the number of recent airline disasters
Folks which one would yu prefer B or D ? and Why ?
I'd go for B: the manufacturer only talks about "danger" as perceived by the aircraft's passengers, while the regulator also points out an issue which is external to the plane itself and concerns its surroundings.
I'd eliminate D because "statistical evidence" means numbers. I don't see any numbers in the regulator's comment: no percentage of crashes, no number of problems encountered...